the other locally recognised Homo species (H. habilis and H. ergaster/H. erectus) to represent a new species. The classification of the fossil material in South Africa, on account of much of it being fragmentary, has historically been highly contested. A few scholars believed that the region didn't preserve any species of Homo, arguing that the fossil material all belonged to australopithecines. Others believed that a single species was represented (H. ergaster) and others accepted the presence of both H. ergaster/H. erectus and H. habilis. Prior to Curnoe's description, it had already been suggested by other palaeoanthropologists, such as Frederick E. Grine and colleagues in 1993 and 1996 that Stw 53, and another skull, SK 847, represented a new species closely related to H. habilis. Based on a number of features in the teeth and skull Curnoue concluded to be distinguishing between Stw 53 and SK 847, and the typical conditions of these features in H. habilis and H. ergaster specimens, Curnoe stated that "it is now clear that the southern African fossils are morphologically too distinct" to be accommodated within either species. As such, Curnoe erected a new species, H. gautengensis, to accommodate them. The species name gautengensis derives from the South African province Gauteng (its name in turn deriving from the Sotho-Tswana word for "place of gold"), where the fossils referred to the species had been recovered. Alongside Stw 53 (the holotype specimen) and SK 847, Curnoe assigned numerous fossil specimens to the species, designating them as paratype specimens; SE 255, SE 1508, Stw 19b/33, Stw 75–79, Stw 80, Stw 84, Stw 151, SK 15, SK 27, SK 45, SKX 257/258, SKX 267/268, SKX 339, SKX 610, SKW 3114 and DNH 70. Among the most major differences noted between Stw 53 and H. habilis by Curnoe was that some of the tooth crowns of Stw 53 were larger than the average tooth crowns of H. habilis whereas other tooth crowns were significantly more narrow. Recognition of H. gautengensis has been limited, with the classification of the individual fossils referred to the species still being contested among palaeoanthropologists. As an example, SK 847 has in addition to H. gautengensis also been referred to Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. sp. nov or H. leakeyi (another proposed species with little recognition). Most of the H. gautengensis fossils are usually seen as representing fossil remains of H. habilis or